Tuesday, October 8, 2024

 Tuesday, October 8, 2024

    Oh, dear. I did something last night that startled my tenant and alarmed me.  I took Elsa out for a walk after dark. It had been raining earlier. As we left, I noticed Joseph's car wasn't there.  I must have been preoccupied when I returned because I didn't notice he had come home. I entered the house and saw the light in his bedroom. I panicked. I came to a very strange conclusion that he had left the light on when he left in the morning, and he would be upset when he came home and saw he had left the light on all day.  I rushed to his door, frantically knocked, and called out. When I didn't hear an immediate response, I threw open the door. He was standing there, putting on a shirt to answer the door.  I can't imagine what he must have been thinking.  How do I explain behavior triggered by PSTD?  What sane person is triggered by a light that shouldn't be on? Let's see; me.  I have never responded that way before. It was the ghost of my mother, who regularly flew off the handle over lights and unexplained sounds and smells.  She had PSTD writ large. 

   I needed a nap mid-morning, but I forgot to set an alarm. I woke up close to 10 when I promised 6th-grade ML and RM that I would be there then. I got out of the house as quickly as possible. Ulu Wini is pretty close.

  When I arrived, all the kids were busy with a craft project with palm fronds under the supervision of a volunteer group. It didn't look like I was going to have any students. Shauntel said that ML and RM wanted to work; they had no interest in the craft project.

     I continued working on comprehension with RM and ML.  ML was consistently attentive and responded to every challenge. RM had to be reminded to pay attention. I asked her about her attentiveness in school. Was it a problem? She said no, but ML looked at me and said yes. I asked RM if she wanted help with it. She said no.  When I asked her questions about the text, she'd pull out one word from the text. It was clear she had no idea what the story was about.  I finally asked her if she made images as she read the story. No, she didn't. I guided her to form them. This activity made a world of difference. She could answer the question easily. She was attentive after that.  That was the missing piece.

   Language is one of the other problems for these girls. ML has only been in this country since 3rd grade.  The kids who remember their lives on the Marshall Islands miss it. I asked ML if she knew why they had to leave the islands. My understanding was that the US government had used the area to test nuclear bombs. ML said something about a dome.  She looked for pictures on the Internet. She knew what she was looking for. 

   When I checked the Internet, I found I was right about the USA using the area as a nuclear bomb testing site. Then, the USA used the area to store nuclear waste not only from the islands but from Nevada as well.  Water is now penetrating the Runit Dome due to the rising water level.  Whada mess!

   I had been feeling increasingly shaky.  I literally felt like I was shaking inside. There was no external manifestation. I assume it was psychological.  After that strange incident, when I knocked on my tenant's door in a panic appropriate for a fire or flood, I was concerned I was heading for a nervous breakdown.

   I did feel good enough today to put together another trash barrel full of green waste for Darby and Patrick.  I picked up many large fallen fronds from the lower yard and wheeled a surprisingly heavy barrel over to their house.

   People have different expectations when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  Some people are conflict-avoidant. Their goal in interpersonal relationships is enjoying each others' company and avoiding anything that could lead to disagreement.  I think conflicts are resolved by domination. One or the other gives in to the other's demands or expectations.  That can work if they take turns.  I suppose it can also work if it is always one who dominates and one who submits.  Each to their own. Whatever the power distribution, the relationship requires someone to adjust around an unmovable object.  Having to do that is part of every long-term relationship. If it's the only strategy for conflict resolution and one or both parties feel they can never disagree for fear of having to 'fight' for their way, it can't be a happy interpersonal arrangement. 

    In the other camp are those who feel you can't count someone as a friend unless you've experienced conflict and resolved it to both parties' satisfaction. In other words, you've worked together to resolve the issue.  That requires being able to 'talk about it.'   it assumes that no two beings are ever precisely on the same page.  This sounds like what all psychologists argue makes for good relationships.   It certainly is an essential element. If it's missing, all relationships can only be superficial. When pressed, these relationships collapse. 

  However, we are all immovable objects to one extent or another, not so much because we're egomaniacs who always feel we should have everything our way but because adapting and changing to suit someone else's needs isn't that easy.   Sometimes, what one party needs represents a deal breaker for the other. There are such things as irreconcilable differences, with all parties having the best intentions.  

    I have an example from my marriage with Mike. We opted for discussion and cocreation, coming up with a third solution that suited us both, sometimes better than the one we had in mind in the first place.  However, there was an exception.

   While Mike thought I was very bright and enjoyed that intelligence without feeling threatened, he couldn't stand the way my mind worked.  He would focus on a single topic and explore it. He would read Aristotle to understand his thinking fully. I would read him to see if I could get an idea of how to solve a problem or gain greater insight into the human condition.  Mike wanted to see how the parts of Aristotle's thinking fit together.  I wanted to see how they illuminated my own thinking. As one friend of mine once said, "Do you ever read anyone for their sake?"  I thought it was an odd question.  Reading it for 'its own sake' sounds as rewarding as assembling a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, but I don't see how it relates to a life mission.  I learn to make the world a better place for myself and others.

    At one point in our marriage, he had had it.  He insisted I had to stop my random thinking. I saw connections between what he considered unrelated things. That's what my mind did. See connections.  It drove him nuts.

   I persuaded him to come with me to see my therapist.  This was a serious issue between us. I didn't have a solution. He demanded that I give up something core to who I was.  God bless that therapist. The conversation went something like this:

   Mike: You got to make her stop. Her mind jumps all over the place.

  Betty:  I see connections between Descartes and the arrangements of lamp posts. I work with primary sources.

   Mike: I work with primary sources, too. I read the original Plato and the original Aristotle. 

   Therapist: Betty is a phenomenalist.

   Mike: oh.  

  That resolved the issue. Mike had a category for me.  He recognized my thinking patterns from famous philosophers whom he admired and enjoyed.  Ah. At the end of his life, he told me he found me endlessly entertaining. He never knew what would come out of my mouth next.

   I don't know what would have happened to us if the therapist hadn't pulled that magic trick.  It might really have been the end of our marriage or at least the end of any joy in our marriage. 

   Mike, God bless him, didn't judge me as competent or incompetent, sane or insane, appropriate or inappropriate.  He only voiced distress.  There's a difference between being uncomfortable with what someone is or does and judging them.  I'm allergic to hard-shelled seafood.  As a result, I don't like it.  But I don't judge it as bad for all of humanity through all ages. There's a difference between I don't like and it's wrong. 

    However, as I think about that moment between Mike and me, I could have offered to keep my thoughts to myself instead of sharing them with him.  We weren't intellectual companions.  We almost never discussed our areas of interest.  I rambled on, thinking aloud, but we didn't discuss anything. Could I have managed that change at that time?  I don't think so.  I could now because I write out my thoughts. 

   Before I met Mike, I kept journals where I thought things out. The journal writing stopped when Mike and I became a couple. It started up again, big time, as he was in the hospital dying. The current updates are a continuation of those emails I sent from the hospital. I might not have continued them on my own. Sandor thought they might be helpful to others, so he encouraged me and helped me set up my blog, With Mike; Without Mike. Writing these is a lifesaver for me.